Scan the ranks of House Democrats and you’d be hard-pressed to find a lawmaker more loyal to President Barack Obama than Jim Clyburn — during the 2008 presidential primary the South Carolinian even incurred the wrath of Bill Clinton over his perceived support for the then-junior senator from Illinois.

Yet as the biggest legislative battle of the president’s final years in office unfolds in Congress — whether to give him the authority to clinch the largest free trade agreement in history — Clyburn is refusing so far to get Obama’s back. The No. 3 House Democrat is remaining neutral on trade promotion authority, despite being summoned with other black Democrats to the Oval Office recently to hear directly from the president.

Story Continued Below

The Senate last week passed TPA on a 62-37 vote. But the House is another story: Only 17 Democrats are on record in support, and several dozen Republicans have come out against it, too. Proponents would lose if a vote were taken today. But there are enough undecided lawmakers to make the expected mid-June vote a cliffhanger.

Clyburn is among the roughly dozen undecided Democrats who may well decide whether Obama clinches a legacy-burnishing accomplishment or is stymied once again by Congress. The congressman jokingly notes the “significant pressure” he’s under — from all sides.

“I’ve said from Day One that trade is good. But there are a lot of things that are good [that] have to be handled right,” Clyburn said in a recent interview. The 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement between the United States, Mexico and Canada, “was good for the investor class. But it was not good for my constituents.”

The pending Trans-Pacific Partnership between the United States and 11 other Pacific Rim nations “is the granddaddy of NAFTA,” Clyburn added.

He and other wavering Democrats are getting full-on love from Obama and other top administration officials, visits from powerful union leaders such as AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, and heavy pressure from corporate America. Newspaper editorials back home and leaders of the pro- and anti-trade factions within the Democratic Caucus are urging them to vote one way or the other. The undecideds have been buttonholed on the House floor, at the members-only gym and at the more than a dozen briefings on trade that Congress has hosted since January.

Obama is hoping to round up 25 to 30 House Democrats to support fast track, along with the 180 to 190 Republicans who are expected to vote yes, to push the measure over the top. While Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) is confidently predicting the votes will be there, others are doubtful.

Besides Clyburn, the Democratic undecideds include Reps. Collin Peterson of Minnesota, Doris Matsui of California, Derek Kilmer of Washington, Cheri Bustos of Illinois and Terri Sewell of Alabama, among others.

The group also includes the top two Democratic leaders, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland. Where they end up could sway other Democrats struggling to make up their minds.

Hoyer, who is close to the pro-business New Democrat Coalition, is considered a likely “yes” vote, by congressional sources, although his own future leadership ambitions inside the caucus will play a role in his decision. He has not said how he plans to vote. Pelosi has told reporters that she is trying to find “a path to yes,” but she hasn’t said which side she is backing.

With Hoyer on the sidelines, at least officially, Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.) has been running the pro-fast track whip operation, along with White House officials and business groups.

The bulk of the Democratic Caucus is against the trade deal, with lawmakers such as Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut leading the charge against fast track. DeLauro has been joined by other prominent Democrats like Reps. Jerry Nadler (N.Y.), Sander Levin (Mich.), Jan Schakowsky (Ill.) and Joe Crowley (N.Y.) in spearheading opposition to the measure.

The most ardent supporters of the deal are members of the 50-member New Democrat Coalition who have teamed up with K Street to lobby for the deal.

The reasons these swing-vote Democrats have given for being undecided are varied. They can’t go against labor leaders or progressive groups, or they have come under fire from big manufacturers in their home states. In a sign of the strain they’re under, some members are dodging questions from the press despite repeated attempts to pin down their position.

Some of this is political gamesmanship. A member looking for assurances on policy or politics for a major piece of legislation is almost always better off holding out until later in the process.

Yet there’s also real concern about what a mammoth trade deal could mean for their working-class constituents. Many of the undecided lawmakers represent districts where middle-class incomes have never recovered from the 2008 financial crisis, even if they acknowledge the macro-economic argument that more trade is good for the country.

Bustos, for example, said her decision will be driven by pressing economic concerns in her blue-collar district.

“I have always been a strong advocate for growth and jobs, but I believe any future trade agreement must also protect Illinois workers,” the Illinois Democrat said in a statement. “That is the standard by which I will evaluate any trade deal that may come up for a vote in the House.”

Clyburn said he has discussed an alternative package crafted by Levin, the ranking Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, with labor leaders. Levin’s proposal would create an advisory board that would have to certify the White House has followed congressional instructions before any measure gets fast-tracked for legislative consideration. Pelosi has offered praise for the idea, but the White House opposes it.

Clyburn said the proposal could be the bridge to a compromise with labor unions. “It seems as if Sandy Levin’s proposal is the pathway that labor is looking for,” Clyburn noted.

Some of the undecided Democrats have long histories on the issue.

Matsui, who was first elected in 2005, worked as a deputy special assistant in the White House for the pro-trade Bill Clinton when NAFTA was approved, and her husband, the late Rep. Bob Matsui, helped craft that trade agreement. Doris Matsui took over the seat following her husband’s death a decade ago.

Doris Matsui (pictured) worked as a deputy special assistant in the White House for the pro-trade Bill Clinton when NAFTA was approved and her husband, the late Rep. Bob Matsui, helped craft that trade agreement. | AP Photo

“I am thoughtfully reviewing both TPP and TPA. Things are ever changing, and there are several unresolved issues that I am closely monitoring,” said Matsui, who has refused to show her hand one way or the other, despite months of pressure from both sides.

But the pressure to oppose a deal strongly disliked by liberals and deep-pocketed unions is intense. Labor unions have told members not to expect support from them if they support fast track — a threat Democratic leaders are taking very seriously.

On the other side of the issue, along with Obama’s own public and private efforts, Cabinet and sub-cabinet officials have stormed congressional districts to make the case for trade, holding more than 130 trade-related events in 35 states since February. Those meetings include a March event with Labor Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez in California to pitch trade as a key factor in bolstering that region’s economy.

There have also been events in Washington state, Virginia, Arizona and Iowa with Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell and Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker — all designed to nudge lawmakers toward the White House’s position.

“Trade as a concept is a good thing,” Clyburn acknowledged. “My thing, as Pelosi has said, is to find a pathway to yes.”